David,
I am fine with this reorganization, however, the wording of the last bullet
has reverted back to something that Al had another issue with ("implemented
such that it can be ignored by assistive technology"). I don't remember the
issue number but he said that all content has to be implemented such that
it can be ignored by assistive technology. That's why I had proposed
alternative wording for that part.
Also, I have removed all of the Team C people from the distribution list.
We get it from the Team C list so we've been getting all of these notes
twice. <grin>
Andi
"David MacDonald"
<befree@magma.ca>
To
01/30/2007 08:38 "'Slatin, John M'"
AM <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>,
"'Gregg Vanderheiden'"
<gv@trace.wisc.edu>, Andi
Snow-Weaver/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc
"'Becky Gibson'"
<Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com>,
"'Michael Cooper'" <cooper@w3.org>,
"'Cynthia Shelly'"
<cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>,
"'Sofia Celic'"
<Sofia.Celic@visionaustralia.org>,
"'Christophe Strobbe'"
<christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.b
e>, <public-wcag-teamc@w3.org>
Subject
RE: 2.5.5
I think I’ve found a way to present 1.1.1 without the use of “exceptions”.
For all non-text content at least one of the following is true:
For non-text content that presents information:
-- if the information can be presented in text, then text alternatives
present the same information as the non-text content.
--if the content is multimedia, live audio-only or live video-only content,
or if the content that is primarily intended to create a specific sensory
experience, then text alternatives at least identify the non-text content
with a descriptive text label.
--if the information cannot be presented in text or if the non-text
content accepts user input, then:
a) If the non-text content is a test or exercise that must be presented
in non-text format, then text alternatives at least identify the
non-text content with a descriptive text label. In addition, if the
purpose of the test is to confirm that content is being operated by a
person rather than a computer, then multiple versions are provided to
accommodate multiple different disabilities.
b) otherwise text alternatives at least identify the purpose of the
non-text content.
For content that does not present information:
--if non-text content is pure decoration, or used only for visual
formatting, or if it is not presented to users, then it is implemented such
that it can be ignored by assistive technology.
access empowers people...
...barriers disable them...
www.eramp.com
From: Slatin, John M [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:10 PM
To: David MacDonald; Gregg Vanderheiden; Andi Snow-Weaver
Cc: Becky Gibson; Michael Cooper; Cynthia Shelly; Sofia Celic; Christophe
Strobbe; public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
Subject: RE: 2.5.5
Thanks, David!
One more small tweak:
<q>For content is multimedia, live audio-only or live video-only
content,</q>
should be
If content ... etc. Or else it should be "For content that is ..."
John
John
"Good design is accessible design."
Dr. John M. Slatin, DirectoruteStation G9600495-4524xas.edu
/research/accessibility
-----Original Message-----.
From: David MacDonald [mailto:befree@magma.ca]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:40 PM
To: Slatin, John M; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'Andi Snow-Weaver'
Cc: 'Becky Gibson'; 'Michael Cooper'; 'Cynthia Shelly'; 'Sofia
Celic'; 'Christophe Strobbe'; public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
Subject: RE: 2.5.5
Thanks John
I actually had just made an adjustment to someone else's proposal and
I didn't notice the missing decorative clause. I think it should go
in under the exceptions section. The rewording below has your
amendments:
For all non-text content at least one of the following is true:
For non-text content that presents information:
-- if the information can be presented in text, then text
alternatives
present the same information as the non-text content.
-- if the information cannot be presented in text or if the non-text
content accepts user input, then:
a) If the non-text content is a test or exercise that must be
presented
in non-text format, then text alternatives at least identify the
non-text content with a descriptive text label. In addition, if the
purpose of the test is to confirm that content is being operated by a
person rather than a computer, then multiple versions are provided to
accommodate multiple different disabilities.
b) otherwise text alternatives at least identify the purpose of the
non-text content.
Exceptions:
For content is multimedia, live audio-only or live video-only
content,
or content that is primarily intended to create a specific sensory
experience, then text alternatives at least identify the non-text
content with a descriptive text label.
If non-text content is pure decoration, or used only for visual
formatting, or if it is not presented to users, then it is
implemented such that it can be ignored by assistive technology.
access empowers people...
...barriers disable them...
www.eramp.com
-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Slatin, John
MJanuary 29, 2007 6:15 PM Vanderheiden; Andi Snow-Weaverl Cooper;
Cynthia Shelly; Sofia Celic; Christophe Strobbe;
public-wcag-teamc@w3.org.5
Thanks, David. I have a question and a couple of observations.
First, the question: the provision for what we useed to call
"decorative" non-text content seems to be missing. Was that
deliberate?
If so, I disagree! And ask that it be reinstated. Otherwise we'll get
people dutifully providing "spacer image" as alt text for every 1x1
.gif...
And now for the concern. This is about the Turing test exception (so
not
directly related to David's post). It reads as follows:
<blockquote>
...In addition, if the purpose of the test is to confirm that content
is
being operated by a person rather than a computer, then different
forms
are provided to accommodate multiple different disabilities.
</blockquote>
"multiple forms" might be misunderstood as requiring the use of
forms. I
think the intent, however, is to require different *versions* of the
test, with each aimed at different needs? So I would recommend
something
like "multiple versions of the test" for clarity's sake.
This would also match up better with "multiple different
disabilities,"
I think.
John
"Good design is accessible design."
Dr. John M. Slatin, Director
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility
-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David
MacDonald
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:21 PM
To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'Andi Snow-Weaver'
Cc: 'Becky Gibson'; 'Michael Cooper'; 'Cynthia Shelly'; 'Sofia
Celic';
'Christophe Strobbe'; public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
Subject: RE: 2.5.5
How about this friendly amendment:
For all non-text content at least one of the following is true:
For non-text content that presents information:
-- if the information can be presented in text, then text
alternatives
present the same information as the non-text content.
-- if the information cannot be presented in text or if the non-text
content accepts user input, then
a) If the non-text content is a test or exercise that must be
presented
in non-text format, then text alternatives at least identify the
non-text content with a descriptive text label. In addition, if the
purpose of the test is to confirm that content is being operated by a
person rather than a computer, then different forms are provided to
accommodate multiple different disabilities.
b) otherwise text alternatives at least identify the purpose of the
non-text content.
Exceptions:
For content is multimedia, live audio-only or live video-only
content,
or content that is primarily intended to create a specific sensory
experience, then text alternatives at least identify the non-text
content with a descriptive text label.
-----------------------------------------
\
Gregg,
This almost works. But I don't think that multimedia, live audio
only,
or live vido only are non-text content that cannot be presented in
text.
Andi
You might move the last (3rd) bullet up to the third place and put
the
exceptions at the bottom. Otherwise the third button is an orphan.
This is the only one with exceptions....
Hmmmmm
As I look at this more I wonder about the construction. The
exceptions.
are not really exceptions but other conditions.... with requirements.
Maybe something like:
For all non-text content at least one of the following is true:
For non-text content that presents information:
-- if the information can be presented in text, then text
alternatives
present the same information as the non-text content.
-- if the information cannot be presented in text or if the non-text
content accepts user input, then
a) if the content is multimedia, live audio-only or live video-only
content, or content that is primarily intended to create a specific
sensory experience, then text alternatives at least identify the
non-text content with a descriptive text label.
b) If the non-text content is a test or exercise that must be
presented.
in non-text format, then text alternatives at least identify the
non-text content with a descriptive text label. In addition, if the
purpose of the test is to confirm that content is being operated by a
person rather than a computer, then different forms are provided to
accommodate multiple different disabilities.
c) otherwise text alternatives at least identify the purpose of the
non-text content.
-- if the non-text content that does not present information
(decorative, formatting, invisible), text alternatives communicate to
assistive technology that the content should not be rendered.
This is hierarchical in nature which I don't like. But it does
reflect.
the nature of this.
Anyone see another way?
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David
MacDonald
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 1:31 PM
> To: 'Andi Snow-Weaver'
> Cc: 'Becky Gibson'; 'Michael Cooper'; 'Cynthia Shelly'; 'Sofia
Celic';
> 'Christophe Strobbe'; public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
> Subject: 2.5.5
>
>
>
> Hi Folks
>
> Andi and I had a conference call this morning and we came up with a
> proposal for issue. 958, SC 1.1.1
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_indivi
> dual.php?id=95
> 8
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/2fwxdz
>
>
>
> I ran it by Gregg and he thinks it works also.
>
> Cheers
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date:
1/26/2007 11:11 AM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.14/657 - Release Date:
1/29/2007 9:04 AM
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.14/657 - Release Date:
1/29/2007 9:04 AM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.tion.Release
Date: 1/29/2007 9:04 AM
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Edition.57 - Release Date:
1/29/2007 9:04 AM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Edition.9 - Release Date:
1/30/2007 9:31 AM